Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #24

[Snoopster]

Chloroform or insulin?

According to that source of all knowledge in the universe, Wikipedia, chloroform isn't very effective at keeping people unconscious for any length of time.

Use of chloroform as an incapacitating agent has become widely recognized, bordering on clichéd, due to the popularity of crime fiction authors having criminals use chloroform-soaked rags to render victims unconscious. However, it is nearly impossible to incapacitate someone using chloroform in this manner.[39] It takes at least five minutes of inhaling an item soaked in chloroform to render a person unconscious. Most criminal cases involving chloroform also involve another drug being co-administered, such as alcohol or diazepam, or the victim being found to have been complicit in its administration. After a person has lost consciousness due to chloroform inhalation, a continuous volume must be administered and the chin must be supported in order to keep the tongue from obstructing the airway, a difficult procedure even for an anesthesiologist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroform

So he couldn't have relied on chloroform alone to keep them incapacitated.

 

[otto]

The most interesting thing I read today was that Garland was recorded on camera at 3:30, 5:15, and 8:00AM.

Please correct me if I got the times slightly off ... I'm going from memory.

That means he stocked the property, came back two hours later and committed the murders, took the victims to his property (and they were alive???), had breakfast with his father, went back to the Liknes home, checked to see whether he left anything behind (a criminal always returns to the scene of the crime), and then ... and was he then an hour late for his weekly Monday morning psychiatric appointment?

Was there testimony that he appeared at the appointment without any scratches of injuries?

If he didn't have any injuries on Monday morning, and did have injuries when he was photographed by police a few days later, that would mean one of two things:

• cuts to his face were visible and the psychiatrist did not notice them, or
• cuts to his face were not visible, so cuts to his face occurred between Monday 9AM and that means ... that at least one victim was alive

 

[Snoopster]

Sorry, but I am having a problem with the 'shower' time stamp by one of the G parents. Who the heck can remember on any given day just what time anyone in their household has a flippin' shower?! I know that there are vague routines,etc. but, really? Given that many days went by before any of this crime came to light for the elder Garlands...how could either one of them been able to state that on the morning after the alleged crime that DG had his shower at a very specific time??

That's why I ignored their statement and figured out when he would have had to have left home in order to drive by the Buddha at the time his truck was seen. It looks like he had his shower around 7-ish.

 

[nettie_82]

That's why I ignored their statement and figured out when he would have had to have left home in order to drive by the Buddha at the time his truck was seen. It looks like he had his shower around 7-ish.

I have tried to find tweets I read earlier about this. But I swear I read the witness testimony was he showered at 7. Than the defence "suggested" shower was 7:30 and the witness agreed. Now I can't find where I read that!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

That's why I ignored their statement and figured out when he would have had to have left home in order to drive by the Buddha at the time his truck was seen. It looks like he had his shower around 7-ish.

Maybe Douglas has a specific routine that includes having a shower in the morning, around 7-ish every day. His father remembered that he had a shower that morning at his usual time of 7-ish. I don't see anything unusual about the statement.

Officially, Douglas was expected at his psychiatrist's office, so most likely he showered before the meeting - per his usual habit. His father said that they had breakfast together at about 7 the morning after the murder, as they usually did.

 

[otto]

I have tried to find tweets I read earlier about this. But I swear I read the witness testimony was he showered at 7. Than the defence "suggested" shower was 7:30 and the witness agreed. Now I can't find where I read that!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Is this a question about the 8AM sighting of the truck ... was that near the Buddha's Veggie restaurant?

 

[Cherchri]

How is that self-serving? She doesn't know if they were alive when they left the house - but they could've been, or not. I'm not sure what people expect of her. She's making an educated observation. Should she have definitively stated one way or the other, despite the fact she couldn't know for sure either way?

:cheers::cheer:

 

[minorone]

Yes it is a concern for any type of tarp or cloth covering if just thrown over the top. He could have rolled them up in the cloth so much that the weight of the bodies held it down though.

So long as he had weight on the edges of the material then it usually stays down. I have an open bed truck and haul things on occasion.

He was probably looking out the rear view mirror too and keeping an eye on it. Whenever you haul stuff in the truck bed you get into a habit of constantly looking in rear view to make sure things arent flying out or things flapping around. He would have just pulled over and fixed the edges if he had to.

As far as the bodies rolling around in the truck bed so long as he drove slowly around any turns and had them facing longways they probably would not roll around too much. I am sure he went at a slower speed around turns with them in back.

Most trucks have tie downs & anchors inside the bed that you can attach a ropes or straps to which hold anything down.

 

[gen_bug]

The most interesting thing I read today was that Garland was recorded on camera at 3:30, 5:15, and 8:00AM.

Please correct me if I got the times slightly off ... I'm going from memory.

That means he stocked the property, came back two hours later and committed the murders, took the victims to his property (and they were alive???), had breakfast with his father, went back to the Liknes home, checked to see whether he left anything behind (a criminal always returns to the scene of the crime), and then ... and was he then an hour late for his weekly Monday morning psychiatric appointment?

Was there testimony that he appeared at the appointment without any scratches of injuries?

If he didn't have any injuries on Monday morning, and did have injuries when he was photographed by police a few days later, that would mean one of two things:

• cuts to his face were visible and the psychiatrist did not notice them, or
• cuts to his face were not visible, so cuts to his face occurred between Monday 9AM and that means ... that at least one victim was alive

So from what I seen today from the tweets, DG Truck was seen on CCTV in the neighbourhood of the Liknes' on June 12th as well.

Then on June 30th it was seen at 3:24-3:31 on CCTV
Next it is seen at 5:15 on McLeod Trail with "white object" in truck box
Then seen again travelling opposite direction on McLeod Trail at 7:37 am w/empty truck box
Around 8 am. CCTV captures truck in Liknes neighbourhood again
And just after 9am again on CCTV outside W. Calgary Dental (Dental and Psychiatrist are at same location)


Bill Graveland ‏@BillGraveland 22s23 seconds ago
Re: truck videos McCaw said there were several sightings of a pick up between 3:24 and 3:31 am, June 30, 2014. Again at 5 am and 8 am.

Nancy Hixt ‏@NancyHixt 1m1 minute ago
McCaw CCTV June 30/14 5:15am-appears to have "white" contents in back-7:37am drives in opposite direction and has nothing in box

Lucie Edwardson ‏@MetroLucie 2m2 minutes ago
Another CCTV video from West Calgary Dental on June 30, 2014 just after 9 a.m. shows a truck that appears to be the same

To me it sounds like DG arrived at the Liknes home sometime around 3:31 as seen by neighbours CCTV. He was captured again around 5, presumably leaving and then 5:15 he is on McLeod outside Buddha's Veggie with something in his cab.

His father testified DG had showered at 7:30, or around 7 - then clarified after Defence asked that it was more like 7:15 am.

Reid Fiest ‏@ReidFiest 10s10 seconds ago
The next morning (June 30) Archie says he heard Douglas in the shower around 7:30am. #yyc #Garland

Meghan Grant ‏@CBCMeg 44s45 seconds ago
Douglas #Garland had supper w/ parents on June 29. Archie says he wasn't aware of anyone leaving acreage. Douglas showered at 7 next morn

Valerie Fortney ‏@ValFortney 1m1 minute ago
Defence suggesting it was 7:15 a.m. when accused was at home Monday June 30, 2014. Archie #Garland agrees

Reid Fiest ‏@ReidFiest 1m1 minute ago
Archie clarified that the time he heard Douglas in the shower was around 7:15am on June 30, 2014 #yyc #garland


We are to believe that DG left the house sometime after 7:15, to be spotted on McLeod Trail again by 7:37, now with an empty truck box. Drives by the Liknes residence at approx 8am. And get to his appointment with Dr. Fischer by 8:30.

We know that he had a long standing appointment with his Pyschiatrist Dr. Thomas Fischer every Monday from 8-9. Receptionist called that day of the 30th and spoke with AG because DG was late, which was unusual. DG finally arrived at his appointment that day, half hour late (8:30) She also stated she did not notice any marks on him.

Kevin Martin ‏@KMartinCourts 4m4 minutes ago
According to agreed facts receptionist at Garland's medical appointment saw no marks on him. #Garland

Hope that helps

 

[Georgeo]

Doubt receptionist looked closely at him. He may have had a baseball cap on to obscure part of face.


Still wondering how some eagle eyed neighbor on shift work or insomniac didn't see or hear something. He had to have had at least a flashlight at L house as it was dark. Surely neighbors were canvassed by LE.

 

[MistyWaters]

Hello fellow websleuthers.
I've followed this tragic case from the onset and decided to reduce the lurker count by one. It seems so incredible that someone as deeply diabolical as DG can literally be hiding in plain view, undergoing weekly psychiatric treatment at that.


But the point I wanted to make, I think the Prosecution's strategy is absolutely brilliant. I believe they are out to do right for Alvin, Kathy and Nathan, to bring closure through a guilty verdict.


No DNA, no fingerprints, no blood to prove DG was ever present at the Likness home. No bodies, no means to determine how or when they died.


This scenario is highly unusual and does not make for an easy slam-dunk conviction. Driving a truck on Calgary streets or owning runners bought from Walmart are not evidence of murder.


However if the Prosecution hadn't brought forth testimony to support their theory that the three were taken from the house alive and murdered at the acreage, I don't believe evidence involving the torture books, techniques, tools and restraining devices, etc would have been admissible. While we all hope that did not actually occur, nobody knows but DG however his seemingly obsessive research and preparation were proof of intent. The Prosecution would be foolish to want to give DG the benefit of doubt by disputing his plan never happened, in the absence of clear proof.


Without connecting alive victims to DG at his acreage, I don't see how it can be proven. beyond reasonable doubt that DG was responsible for murdering the three at the Likness residence. To me, the theory makes the most sense.


Otherwise, what if it was a bushy-haired stranger who murdered the family at the house and DG only agreed to remove and dispose of the bodies based on lurid curiosity of the autopsy process?


I think the Prosecution is doing an amazing job at presenting an extremely complex case.

 

[JadeSLeuth]

Hello fellow websleuthers.
I've followed this tragic case from the onset and decided to reduce the lurker count by one. It seems so incredible that someone as deeply diabolical as DG can literally be hiding in plain view, undergoing weekly psychiatric treatment at that.


But the point I wanted to make, I think the Prosecution's strategy is absolutely brilliant. I believe they are out to do right for Alvin, Kathy and Nathan, to bring closure through a guilty verdict.


No DNA, no fingerprints, no blood to prove DG was ever present at the Likness home. No bodies, no means to determine how or when they died.


This scenario is highly unusual and does not make for an easy slam-dunk conviction. Driving a truck on Calgary streets or owning runners bought from Walmart are not evidence of murder.


However if the Prosecution hadn't brought forth testimony to support their theory that the three were taken from the house alive and murdered at the acreage, I don't believe evidence involving the torture books, techniques, tools and restraining devices, etc would have been admissible. While we all hope that did not actually occur, nobody knows but DG however his seemingly obsessive research and preparation were proof of intent. The Prosecution would be foolish to want to give DG the benefit of doubt by disputing his plan never happened, in the absence of clear proof.


Without connecting alive victims to DG at his acreage, I don't see how it can be proven. beyond reasonable doubt that DG was responsible for murdering the three at the Likness residence. To me, the theory makes the most sense.


Otherwise, what if it was a bushy-haired stranger who murdered the family at the house and DG only agreed to remove and dispose of the bodies based on lurid curiosity of the autopsy process?


I think the Prosecution is doing an amazing job at presenting an extremely complex case.

Welcome MistyWaters - Great first post!
:goodpost:
:welcome4:

 

[Sprigs]

Was thinking about CCTV footage of the truck June 12,2014 and so went through closed thread - computer info and Schlage lock sub folder was created June 13, 2014. Copied the post below:

Quote Originally Posted by Kamille View Post

Nancy HixtVerified account ‏@NancyHixt 24s25 seconds ago
Kraan: sub folder created June 13/14 about Schlage BE 365 lock--last accessed June 22/14--that's the lock on door to Liknes home #Garland

Kevin MartinVerified account ‏@KMartinCourts 21s22 seconds ago
"It's a user guide for the BE365," Kraan says of one eight-page document. #Garland

Bill GravelandVerified account ‏@BillGraveland 58s59 seconds ago
Kraan said the document is an 8 page user guide for the BE365 Schlage lock. Another PDF - on programming the same lock. #Garland



If the folder about their specific log was created on June 13th, 2014 does that mean around that time he was possibly sleuthing around their house? Creepy.

 

[Slebby]

I thought the same thing. Maybe he didn't think that part through as thoroughly as he did other parts of his plan.

He may have used duct tape to wrap them in the bedding. Just a thought.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Slebby]

Hello fellow websleuthers.
I've followed this tragic case from the onset and decided to reduce the lurker count by one. It seems so incredible that someone as deeply diabolical as DG can literally be hiding in plain view, undergoing weekly psychiatric treatment at that.


But the point I wanted to make, I think the Prosecution's strategy is absolutely brilliant. I believe they are out to do right for Alvin, Kathy and Nathan, to bring closure through a guilty verdict.


No DNA, no fingerprints, no blood to prove DG was ever present at the Likness home. No bodies, no means to determine how or when they died.


This scenario is highly unusual and does not make for an easy slam-dunk conviction. Driving a truck on Calgary streets or owning runners bought from Walmart are not evidence of murder.


However if the Prosecution hadn't brought forth testimony to support their theory that the three were taken from the house alive and murdered at the acreage, I don't believe evidence involving the torture books, techniques, tools and restraining devices, etc would have been admissible. While we all hope that did not actually occur, nobody knows but DG however his seemingly obsessive research and preparation were proof of intent. The Prosecution would be foolish to want to give DG the benefit of doubt by disputing his plan never happened, in the absence of clear proof.


Without connecting alive victims to DG at his acreage, I don't see how it can be proven. beyond reasonable doubt that DG was responsible for murdering the three at the Likness residence. To me, the theory makes the most sense.


Otherwise, what if it was a bushy-haired stranger who murdered the family at the house and DG only agreed to remove and dispose of the bodies based on lurid curiosity of the autopsy process?


I think the Prosecution is doing an amazing job at presenting an extremely complex case.

Welcome.
I agree with you, I think the Crown has a very deliberate trial strategy. It's not designed to satisfy our curiosity or desire to know the facts. I think it's designed to break up the evidence methodically and in a way that minimizes the ability of the defence to gain any ground in cross examination. I think they're doing a really good job, and I'm quite ok with being patient and watching the truth unfold.
IMO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Cherchri]

Hello fellow websleuthers.
I've followed this tragic case from the onset and decided to reduce the lurker count by one. It seems so incredible that someone as deeply diabolical as DG can literally be hiding in plain view, undergoing weekly psychiatric treatment at that.


But the point I wanted to make, I think the Prosecution's strategy is absolutely brilliant. I believe they are out to do right for Alvin, Kathy and Nathan, to bring closure through a guilty verdict.


No DNA, no fingerprints, no blood to prove DG was ever present at the Likness home. No bodies, no means to determine how or when they died.


This scenario is highly unusual and does not make for an easy slam-dunk conviction. Driving a truck on Calgary streets or owning runners bought from Walmart are not evidence of murder.


However if the Prosecution hadn't brought forth testimony to support their theory that the three were taken from the house alive and murdered at the acreage, I don't believe evidence involving the torture books, techniques, tools and restraining devices, etc would have been admissible. While we all hope that did not actually occur, nobody knows but DG however his seemingly obsessive research and preparation were proof of intent. The Prosecution would be foolish to want to give DG the benefit of doubt by disputing his plan never happened, in the absence of clear proof.


Without connecting alive victims to DG at his acreage, I don't see how it can be proven. beyond reasonable doubt that DG was responsible for murdering the three at the Likness residence. To me, the theory makes the most sense.


Otherwise, what if it was a bushy-haired stranger who murdered the family at the house and DG only agreed to remove and dispose of the bodies based on lurid curiosity of the autopsy process?


I think the Prosecution is doing an amazing job at presenting an extremely complex case.

:Welcome1::welcome::wagon:

 

[Sprigs]

Ok I looking back at DG's parents testimony regarding the psychiatrist call time and I'm wondering about something else.

The neighbour mentioned seeing greenhouse light on middle of night

Defense asked DG's Mom:

Kevin Martin ‏@KMartinCourts · 53s54 seconds ago
Douglas Garland didn't spend any time in his homemade greenhouse around time of murders, his mother tells defence lawyer Kim Ross. #garland

We had police take us through the outbuildings and the basement of the home. Did they talk about going into the greenhouse yet? I don't remember if they did and so if they haven't yet I'm hoping they have saved it as they have significant evidence to talk about.

 

[musicaljoke]

This may be a Canada trial thing but how come the Prosecution does not flat out ask the witness a question like

"So in your opinion do you think it was the same type of shoes he had on?"

Unless I missed it the witness never says that. Even with the truck evidence he just points out all the similarities but is never asked if he thinks it is the same truck.

Why?
Is that something not allowed in Canada trial procedures?

I am pretty sure in the states the expert type witnesses are flat out asked that sort of thing.

I'm not sure what happens in court in the US, other than TV court, which is just a story telling theatre, but you made an astute observation.

In Canada, the trial is all evidence based. The jury is shown one item of evidence after another, often presented by expert witnesses. The expert witness can't make judgements that are reserved for the jury. You'll hear the expert say something convoluted like, "the evidence does not rule out the possible match". They can't say "the evidence supports the theory", or "I think this is the way it went down", or "I don't know", because that's not evidence.

Even when presenting conclusive DNA evidence, the expert will not likely say whose blood was found where, but rather he or she will say something like, "with 97% certainty, we can't rule out the possibility that the blood matches the victim".

I think that what people find frustrating with Canadian trials, is that they expect the trial to tell the story of what happened. Folks are frustrated when the evidence isn't presented in chronological order because they expect to piece together the story. But that's not the purpose of the trial. The story might come out in a documentary later, but not court, The trial is when an itemized list of evidence is presented to the jury so that they can make a judgement on the charges.

 

[Snoopster]

Ok I looking back at DG's parents testimony regarding the psychiatrist call time and I'm wondering about something else.

The neighbour mentioned seeing greenhouse light on middle of night



We had police take us through the outbuildings and the basement of the home. Did they talk about going into the greenhouse yet? I don't remember if they did and so if they haven't yet I'm hoping they have saved it as they have significant evidence to talk about.

Great point about them not discussing what, if anything, they found in the greenhouse. If they found the witness saying DG had been in there at night surely they would have scoured it. With his parents saying they didn't think he was in the greenhouse, this could also imply deception....something to hide from them. Not that he didn't have LOTS to hide from them as we found out, even just the possible fetish type items. hoh:

 

[Hatfield]

I'm not sure what happens in court in the US, other than TV court, which is just a story telling theatre, but you made an astute observation.

In Canada, the trial is all evidence based. The jury is shown one item of evidence after another, often presented by expert witnesses. The expert witness can't make judgements that are reserved for the jury. You'll hear the expert say something convoluted like, "the evidence does not rule out the possible match". They can't say "the evidence supports the theory", or "I think this is the way it went down", or "I don't know", because that's not evidence.

Even when presenting conclusive DNA evidence, the expert will not likely say whose blood was found where, but rather he or she will say something like, "with 97% certainty, we can't rule out the possibility that the blood matches the victim".

I think that what people find frustrating with Canadian trials, is that they expect the trial to tell the story of what happened. Folks are frustrated when the evidence isn't presented in chronological order because they expect to piece together the story. But that's not the purpose of the trial. The story might come out in a documentary later, but not court, The trial is when an itemized list of evidence is presented to the jury so that they can make a judgement on the charges.

Thanks so much!

This explains a lot and it definitely explains why the trial has been frustrating at times while listening to the witnesses. Thanks again.